Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Reliability of remote self-administered digital cognitive assessments: preliminary validation study
Duong P. Huynh, Siao Ye, Reza Hosseini Ghomi, Mary Patterson, Bin Huang. Frontiers in Digital Health, 2025-07-03
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
We found moderate or good agreement between self- and RC-administered performance, with intraclass correlation ranging from 0.59 to 0.83. Results from mixed-effects modeling further confirm the non-significant difference between self- vs. RC-administered testing performance, which is independent of other factors including testing order, ISI, device, and participants' demographic characteristics. These results demonstrate the feasibility of remote self-administration using BrainCheck.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Huynh, D. P., Ye, S., Ghomi, R. H., Patterson, M., & Huang, B. (2025). Reliability of remote self-administered digital cognitive assessments: preliminary validation study. Frontiers in Digital Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1571053
Vancouver
Huynh DP, Ye S, Ghomi RH, Patterson M, Huang B. Reliability of remote self-administered digital cognitive assessments: preliminary validation study. Frontiers in Digital Health. 2025. doi:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1571053. PMID: 40678715.
BibTeX
@article{huynh2025-40678715,
author = {Huynh, Duong P. and Ye, Siao and Ghomi, Reza Hosseini and Patterson, Mary and Huang, Bin},
title = {{Reliability of remote self-administered digital cognitive assessments: preliminary validation study}},
journal = {Frontiers in Digital Health},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.3389/fdgth.2025.1571053},
pmid = {40678715},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1571053}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We found moderate or good agreement between self- and RC-administered performance, with intraclass correlation ranging from 0.59 to 0.83.
- Results from mixed-effects modeling further confirm the non-significant difference between self- vs.
- RC-administered testing performance, which is independent of other factors including testing order, ISI, device, and participants' demographic characteristics.
- These results demonstrate the feasibility of remote self-administration using BrainCheck.
Why it matters
This preliminary validation study found moderate or good agreement between self-administered and remotely clinician-administered digital cognitive assessments, with no significant difference in performance. The results demonstrate the feasibility of remote self-administration using this platform.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Participants46
- Effect size60.9%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 44/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in Digital Health) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Frontiers in Digital Health: journal h-index 66 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 46 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 2 / 7 | Cited 5 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 3.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 5 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Bin Huang: h-index 25 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | University of Washington: institution h-index 3,540 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40678715) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 44 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1571053
- PubMed: 40678715
- Original source →
- Free full text: Frontiers in Digital Health →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “assessment”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.